It is true, Mr. Nath did indeed transport his vehicle with Car-Go. To say his vehicle was damaged during transport and that he could not get any assistance from Car-Go is absolutely untrue. Mr. Nath contacted Car-Go with very specific shipping needs that were outside our standard 1 week advance notice for scheduling and a 3-business day widow for pick up. He also did not want to pay for a "guaranteed " service. I spent a great deal of time trying to accommodate his very specific time frame for the shipping of his vehicle. Car-Go even went ahead and arranged for the delivery the day after he arrived in North Carolina to ensure our customer would be able to do a proper inspection of his vehicle. By our customers own admission, his actions are what caused the dilemma when potential damage was addressed, hours later and after the vehicle was taken to an automatic car wash for cleaning. 1st off, We advise Mr. Nath that a delivery during daylight hours is best to ensue he would be able to do a proper inspection. We set it up with the driver so deliver had to be made the morning after he arrived in North Carolina . He called the driver himself and said delivery that evening would be great and that way it would not interfere with his work. He states that it was very dark where he accepted his vehicle when in fact delivery happened on a very well lit street. Also, he signed off on a "BOL", a legal binding document, stating vehicle was received in good condition and releasing the driver of any liability for damages. 2nd, our customer did not contact Car-Go regarding any problems until the afternoon of the next day. He told us that he had been trying to contact the driver since that morning when in fact he didn't even try contacting the driver until right before his call to us. 3rd, he told Car-Go that his vehicle never moved from where the driver delivered his vehicle when in fact he had taken it to a drive through car wash which could have very well caused the "damage" that our customer now claims was done during transit. From the moment our customer contacted Car-Go regarding "potential damage" we stayed in contact with him. We asked that our customer send us a statement as to what transpired so we could send it to the carrier to review. Both Car-Go and the carrier were open to discuss what was verbally told us by the customer. Upon receiving our customers written statement we noticed discrepancies. When questioned about these discrepancies our customer stated that "what did it matter" if what he said was inaccurate, or if he indeed signed a legal binding document (the BOL ) that ''we should believe him no matter what because he was the customer''. While assisting Mr. Nath with filing the insurance claim our customer informed us that he would prefer to be paid directly by Car-Go and not have the insurance companies involved because Car-Go would not report any potential damage to Carfax and if the insurance companies paid they would indeed report to Carfax and then when he sold his vehicle he would not be able to get what he wanted for it.